J v E (No2)(Case Management) [2024] EWFC 107 (24 May 2024)

J v E (No2)(Case Management) [2024] EWFC 107 (24 May 2024)

The mother demonstrated she could not reasonably obtain legal representation without a costs allowance due to disputed asset ownership and lack of income; her applications were neither unreasonable nor meritless. The father's application for a costs order was refused as the mother's conduct was not unreasonable or reprehensible, and the general rule against costs orders in children proceedings applied. Amendments to the case management timetable were necessary due to delays in obtaining evidence from Zambia.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 107
Parties
Applicant: J; Respondent: E
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Family (children and Financial Remedies) / Interlocutory Judgment on Costs Allowance, Costs Order, and Case Management Directions
Outcome
Mother granted a costs allowance; father's application for costs refused; case management directions amended.
Legal Topics
Child Arrangements, Relocation of Child, Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Costs Allowance, Case Management, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Legal Funding
Family Law Child Arrangements Relocation of Child Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Costs Allowance Case Management Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 Habitual Residence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 20
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J

Applicant

E

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family (children and Financial Remedies) / Interlocutory Judgment on Costs Allowance, Costs Order, and Case Management Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mother should be granted a costs allowance to fund her legal representation
  2. 2 Whether the father should be awarded his costs of the Children Act proceedings since the Court of Appeal hearing
  3. 3 Whether the case management timetable should be amended

Ratio Decidendi

The mother demonstrated she could not reasonably obtain legal representation without a costs allowance due to disputed asset ownership and lack of income; her applications were neither unreasonable nor meritless. The father's application for a costs order was refused as the mother's conduct was not unreasonable or reprehensible, and the general rule against costs orders in children proceedings applied. Amendments to the case management timetable were necessary due to delays in obtaining evidence from Zambia.

Court Disposition

Mother granted a costs allowance; father's application for costs refused; case management directions amended.

Orders

  • Costs allowance of £113,352 (including VAT) awarded to the mother to cover outstanding and future legal costs, to be paid by the father.
  • No order as to the father's costs of the Children Act proceedings since the Court of Appeal hearing.